Her Majesty the Queen - v. -, 2018 SKPC 28

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN YOUTH JUSTICE COURT Citation: 2018 SKPC 028 Date: February 23, 2018 Information: Y368612 Location: La Loche _____________________________________________________________________________ Between: Her Majesty the Queen - and - R.D.F. Appearing: Lloyd W. Stang and Pouria Tabrizi-Reardigan For the Crown Aaron A. Fox, Q.C. and Darren K.

Kraushaar For the Accused Note: Sections 110 and 111 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act contain prohibitions against publication of a name or other information that would identify someone as either a young person being dealt with under the Act , or as a child or young person who is a victim or a witness in relation to an offence alleged under the Act. DECISION J.E. MCIVOR , J I. INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] Friday, January 22, 2016 is seared into the memory of the community of La Loche,

Saskatchewan. This day is now referred to nationally and locally as the La Loche School shooting. [ 2 ] It was on this day that R.F. shot and killed two family members in their residence. He seriously injured seven others and killed two employees at the La Loche High School.

R.F., born February 6, 1998, was fifteen days from his eighteenth birthday. [ 3 ] On October 28, 2016, R.F. pled guilty to two counts of first degree murder, two counts of second degree murder, and seven counts of attempted murder. [ 4 ] The Crown, having previously given Notice of Intention to Apply for an Adult Sentence, confirmed its intention to proceed with the application. R.F. opposes the application. The Court ordered a Pre-Sentence Report [PSR], a psychological assessment and a psychiatric assessment for the required hearing pursuant to

section 71 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act , SC 2002, c 1 [YCJA] . All matters were heard in Meadow Lake Provincial Court. [ 5 ] In addition to viva voce evidence, Crown and defence, by consent, filed numerous documentary exhibits as contained in Appendices 1. II. BACKGROUND [ 6 ] R.F.’s biological mother is Gail Fontaine. Lara Fontaine is Gail’s sister. Lara has raised R.F. He considers her as his mother. Throughout his upbringing R.F. has had contact with Gail. [ 7 ] Dayne Fontaine and his brother, Drayden are the victims of the second degree murder charges. They were 17 and 13 years of age when they died.

Their mother is Alicia, a sister to R.F.’s adoptive mother Lara. [ 8 ] Dayne and Drayden lived with their grandparents across the street from R.F.’s home. All three boys attended the La Loche school. R.F. visited his cousins’ residence on a daily basis, often more than once a day. Dayne, using a family vehicle, would usually drive the three of them to and from school. [ 9 ] The victims of the first-degree murder charges were school employees. Adam Jacob Wood, 36 years old, was a teacher.

He moved from Uxbridge, Ontario, in 2015 to begin his teaching career. [ 10 ] Marie Jacqueline Janvier, 21 years old, was a teacher’s aide. She was born and raised in La Loche. She attended the same school that she ultimately died in. She was an only child. Her mother still resides in La Loche. [ 11 ] The attempted murder victims were both students and teachers. The four students ranged in age from 13 to 19. [ 12 ] Phylis Ann Longobardi, age 58, was the assistant principal at the school. She resided in La Loche for many years, having moved from Eastern Canada to pursue her teaching career.

[ 13 ] Charlene Marie Klyne, age 55, was a teacher. She was at the school that day because she was substituting for another teacher. [ 14 ] Christie Montgrand, age 24, was a teacher’s aide. She is a lifelong resident of La Loche. III. THE FACTS [ 15 ] An Agreed Statement of Facts was filed. It contains details of the offences, of events prior to and following the actual offences, investigative results, autopsy results and medical reports of the injured. I will be referencing the Agreed Statement of Facts frequently.

I have also incorporated information from other sources of documentary evidence (filed by consent) into the following facts. [ 16 ] School surveillance cameras captured the shootings. Video footage has been filed by consent. [ 17 ] Details of the deaths of Dayne and Drayden were provided by R.F. during a Pre- Sentence Report (PSR) interview. Those details were incorporated into the Agreed Statement of Facts. [ 18 ] On the morning of January 22, 2016, R.F. and his cousins went to school and attended classes.

R.F. did not smoke or otherwise consume any marijuana or other drugs, nor did he consume any alcohol. [ 19 ] That morning at 11:15 a.m., using his iPhone, R.F. accessed websites about Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (the infamous Columbine High School shooters). [ 20 ] At 11:16 a.m., using his iPhone, R.F. searched two kinds of firearms on Wikipedia: “Savage Arms” and “Tec 9”. [ 21 ] Just before noon, R.F. spoke to Alex Mendez, a teacher, about his poor grades. They were to meet again later that day. [ 22 ] At approximately noon, R.F. and his cousins went home for lunch.

R.F. went to his own house, quickly ate lunch, went to his bedroom and got some ammunition. He then went across the street to his grandparents’ residence. Dayne was eating lunch. There was no one else in the residence, just him and Dayne. [ 23 ] R.F. went to Dayne’s bedroom and got a .22 calibre rifle. He went to Drayden’s bedroom while still holding the rifle. [ 24 ] R.F. and Dayne were calling out to each other from different parts of the house about going back to school for the afternoon.

[ 25 ] R.F., being in the basement of the residence, called out for Dayne to “come here”. Dayne came down the stairs and asked R.F. “what are you doing?” R.F. raised the .22 calibre rifle, aimed it at Dayne who said, “Don’t shoot me”. [ 26 ] R.F. fired one shot, which hit Dayne. Dayne screamed and ran back up the stairs. R.F. followed him shooting him multiple times in the back. Dayne fell to the floor in the kitchen. R.F. went up to Dayne who, at this point, told R.F. that he did not want to die. R.F. fired another shot into Dayne’s head. In total, Dayne was shot eleven times.

Dayne died from his injuries inside the house. [ 27 ] R.F. then went back downstairs to get a more powerful rifle to take to the school. He found and loaded a Remington 30-06 SPRG Model 760 pump action rifle. While attempting to cycle ammunition from the magazine clip to the chamber, the mechanism jammed. For this reason he decided not to use that weapon and instead grabbed a shotgun. He went back into Dayne’s room to get shotgun shells. [ 28 ] He searched around and found the keys for his aunt’s half-ton truck. He took the shotgun outside and put it in the back portion of the cab of the truck.

As he was doing this he noticed his cousin Drayden running towards the truck. Drayden asked for a ride back to school and asked where Dayne was. [ 29 ] R.F. told Drayden to follow him into the house. R.F. ran ahead to get the rifle with which he had shot Dayne. Once inside the house, R.F. heard Drayden calling out for Dayne. R.F. said to Drayden “come here”. When Drayden went up the stairs from the entry R.F. shot him once in the face and again in the head.

Drayden died from his injuries inside the residence. [ 30 ] At approximately 1:00 p.m., R.F. left his grandparents’ house and drove his aunt’s truck to the school. [ 31 ] The following facts were not contained in the Agreed Statement of Facts but in the PSR which was filed by consent. Dayne was lying on the floor and was barely breathing.

R.F. pointed the gun at his head as, Dayne tried to cover his head with his hands and made the comment about not wanting to die. “Right after R.F. recalled thinking ‘what the fuck am I doing, what the fuck did I just do’ and described it like a bad dream and he wanted to wake up, but it was all real.

R.F. remembers he was feeling panicky and full of adrenaline”. [ 32 ] Further, from the PSR, when R.F. went back upstairs after retrieving the shotgun to take to the school, he took Dayne’s phone out of Dayne’s pocket and turned it off as R.F. did not want anyone to try and contact Dayne. [ 33 ] Lastly, from the PSR, before leaving the residence, R.F. saw Dayne’s and Drayden’s shoes by the front door.

He moved their shoes toward the wall so that no one could see them. [ 34 ] At 1:01 p.m., while driving to the school, R.F., using his iPhone, accessed Facebook Messenger and as part of a group chat, he wrote the following: “sup” “im done with life” ‘Darius’ responded by writing “Why ears” “why” R.F. then wrote:

“just killed 2 ppl” “bout to shoot ip the school” “Dayne and lul” “are dead” “brosss” [ 35 ] The following sequence of events occurred at the school: a. At 1:02 p.m., R.F. drove into the school parking lot, parked for approximately 45 seconds alongside some posts, then drove once around the parking lot, finally parking in front of the school. b. At 1:04 p.m., he walked to the front entrance of the school. He entered the school and looked around the common area. He then went back out. While leaving, he encountered three friends in the front entrance but did not speak to them. c. He walked back to the truck.

At 1:05 p.m., he took out the shotgun. With shotgun in hand and ammunition in his pockets he walked to the front entrance to the school. d. That afternoon there were approximately 150 students and teachers in the school. e. Seeing him, students at the main entrance and common area of the school started to disperse and run away. Adam Wood ran from the common area into the main office. He immediately called 911 and was able to leave a short but urgent message with the call taker. f. R.F. started shooting before re-entering the main area of the school.

In or around the foyer of the main entrance he shot and wounded three students. He first shot N.L.E., who was struck primarily in the left chest and arm. He then shot T.H., who was struck primarily in the chest and right arm, and K.J., who was struck primarily in the left abdomen and left calf. g. At 1:06 p.m., he entered the common area of the school and shot in the general direction of Phylis Longobardi. She was not hit. He aimed more directly at her and shot again. This time she was hit on her right forearm and wrist.

She ran into a nearby classroom, closed the door, called the police, and the elementary school to tell them to lock down their building. Finally, she called the Northern Lights School Division to tell them what was happening. h. R.F. pointed the shotgun back towards the main entrance and shot through the main entrance foyer at J.M. who was just outside the front doors of the school. The shot shattered the glass portion of the interior front door. She was hit in the left arm, left buttock and left leg. i. R.F. continued to walk around the common area briefly. He then shot out a window to Ms.

Longobardi’s office and went into the general office area. He encountered Adam Wood. R.F. shot him twice. The first shot was to Mr. Wood’s right torso at close range. He immediately fell to the floor. R.F. shot him again as he lay bleeding on the floor. j. At 1:07 p.m., R.F. continued to make his way through the school looking for other people to shoot. As part of this process he was checking various doors but fortunately they were locked. k. At 1:07:43 p.m., he shot through the glass portion of a closed door. Charlene Klyne was at her desk facing the door, working with a student.

She was hit primarily in her face, neck and chest. Marie Janvier, who was helping the student, immediately came to the assistance of Ms. Klyne. l. R.F. walked away from this classroom for approximately 40 seconds and then returned. At 1:08:24 p.m., he fired a second shot through the already damaged door. Ms. Klyne was hit yet again as was Marie Janvier. Ms. Janvier was shot in the neck and chest area. She died instantly. m. He continued to walk around the hallways. At 1:09:36 p.m., he encountered a teacher, Ida Lemaigre. She briefly opened the door of the classroom into which she had fled.

She saw R.F., and recognizing him as a student, she called for him to come to her for refuge. She then saw the gun he was carrying. Realizing he was the shooter she immediately retreated into the classroom and locked the door. He did not try to shoot her or gain entry into that classroom. n. Within seconds of seeing Ms. Lemaigre, he saw a student running in the hallway. This student was Tegan Park. R.F. ran after Tegan but was unable to catch him before Mr. Park was able to jump down some stairs and escape out a side exit door.

R.F. followed him all the way to the door, opened it, but did not follow outside or shoot at him. o. He then walked to classroom 107 where, at 1:10:02 p.m., he fired one shot through the window portion of the classroom door. Christie Montgrand was struck in the back. p. R.F. returned to the common area, briefly went into the main entrance foyer, returned to the common area, and then went back to the foyer where he looked outside. He went back into the common area and at 1:11:12 p.m. shot out the large glass display case. q.

He meandered around the common area for approximately 40 seconds, took out his iPhone, looked at it and threw it on the floor. r. At 1:11:55 p.m., Cst. Dustin Freeman entered the school. R.F. was still in the common area but when he saw the officer he ran

away and hid in the women’s washroom at approximately1:12:10 pm. s. Cst. Freeman pursued R.F. and searched the hallways for him as other officers began arriving. At approximately 1:15 pm R.F. was seen exiting the washroom. t. R.F. confirmed the loaded shotgun was in the washroom. He said he contemplated committing suicide and that the shotgun was leaning against the sink counter. As he exited the washroom he told the police officers “I’m the shooter”. At 1:16 p.m., R.F. was arrested. u. The shotgun was found where he said it would be. There was one shotgun shell left in the chamber. v.

Police officers searched the entire school to ensure there were no others perpetrators. This process took approximately 28 minutes. w. While being escorted out of the school R.F. pointed out his iPhone on the floor. To Sgt. Allcock he said “You should check my house”. When Sgt. Allcock asked what he would see, R.F. responded “my brothers”. [ 36 ] RCMP officers had to break into the residence as both front and back doors were locked. Dayne and Drayden were inside, both deceased. Adam Wood was pronounced dead at the La Loche hospital.

Marie Janvier was deceased at the scene. [ 37 ] At the residence, 17 shots were fired from a Mossberg International .22 calibre rifle. Dayne was struck by 11 shots, Drayden by two. [ 38 ] Drayden (13) was on his back near the top of the stairs with visible trauma to his face. His autopsy report revealed that one bullet entered through the right cheek and punctured into the right temporal bone. The second bullet entered through the back of the head. Death was a result of brain injury. [ 39 ] Dayne (17) was found near the couch in the living room area laying on his right side.

There was injury to internal organs including the brain, heart and lungs. [ 40 ] The weapon used was leaning against the wall by the front door. It was still loaded. The rifle that had jammed was found downstairs. Three other rifles were found downstairs and six in a cabinet. Ammunition was located throughout the basement area. Thirty five .22 calibre shells were on the kitchen counter. [ 41 ] Marie Janvier was deceased with visible injuries to her neck and chest area. According to the autopsy report, Ms. Janvier suffered significant injuries to her jugular veins, aorta, lungs and heart.

Death would have been near instantaneous. [ 42 ] Adam Wood was taken to the La Loche Health Centre but he had no pulse or respiration at the scene. His autopsy revealed injuries sustained from close range and intermediate range shotgun wounds. Cause of death was gunshot wounds to the chest and abdomen. [ 43 ] The author of the Pre-Sentence Report wrote: “R.F. claims he had been planning the shooting for a few months and he picked that day because his grandparents were out of town so no one would see him take the gun.

R.F. indicates it was never his plan to kill his brothers (cousins) and wishes he had just stayed home that morning or just returned to school after lunch . [1] [ 44 ] Paragraph 17 of the Agreed Statement of Facts reads:

In September 2015, R.F. started a new year of high school. Sometime during the month of September 2015, R.F. and a friend of his were in the canteen at the school and they had a conversation during which R.F. talked about shooting up the school. R.F. recalls saying. “…if you were told one day or if someone came into the school and shot it up and they told you it was me, would you believe it?” His friend did not believe R.F. or feel that the comment was serious. [ 45 ] R.F. possessed both an iPhone and an iPad during January of 2016.

He used both devices to perform internet searches/browsing pertaining to firearms and school shootings. The Agreed Statement of Facts itemizes the searches as follows: 19. On January 7, 2016 at 3:18 p.m., using his iPhone, R.F. searched “.308 vs. 30-06”. 20. On January 7, 2016 at 3:21 p.m., using his iPhone, R.F. searched “458 vs. socom ammo”. 21. On January 7, 2016 at 3:24 p.m., using his iPhone, R.F. searched “700 Nitro Express Ammo”. 22. On January 7, 2016 at 4:17 pm., using his iPhone, R.F. searched “Mossberg 25 round magazine”, “700 nitro express ammo”, and “.308 vs 30-06”. 23.

On January 19, 2016 at 5:15 p.m., R.F. used his iPhone to take a two-second video and two photographs of a .22 calibre rifle and a shotgun. The photos of the firearms show them to be on a bed with a flower blanket. 24. On January 20, 2016 at 10:30 p.m., using his iPad, R.F. searched “30 06 vs human”. 25. On January 21, 2016, R.F. attended school in the afternoon after school was done he got high smoking marijuana. 26. On January 21, 2016 at 4:00 p.m., using his iPad, R.F. searched “school shootings in Canada”. 27.

On January 21, 2016 during the evening, R.F. attended 341 Dene Crescent where he visited and played video games with his cousins. During this visit, R.F. learned that his cousins’ mother, Alicia Fontaine, would be at work and out of town the next day. Additionally, he learned that his grandparents, Norman Fontaine and Bernadette Fontaine, would also be leaving La Loche the next morning and would be away for the day. 28. On January 21, 2016 at 9:16 p.m., using his iPad, R.F. accessed a web page or

article about “what does it feel like to kill someone.” 29. On January 21, 2016, at 9:21 p.m., using his iPad, R.F. accessed a web page or

article about “to anyone who has, what does it feel like to take someone’s life – ask reddit”. 30. On January 21, 2016 at 9:22 p.m., using his iPad, R.F. accessed a web page or

article about “after the gun goes off”. 31. On January 21, 2016, at 9:24 p.m., using his iPad, R.F. searched “killing a family member” and accessed a web page or

article about “am I more likely to kill an intruder or a family member with a gun in my house”. 32. On January 21, 2016 at 9:44 p.m., using his iPad, R.F. accessed a web page or

article about “familicide – Wikipedia”. 33. On January 21, 2016 at 9:45 p.m., using his iPad, R.F. accessed a web page or

article about “fratricide – Wikipedia”. IV. EVIDENCE AT THE SENTENCING HEARING A. THE PRE-SENTENCE REPORT [ 46 ] Ms. Tanis Fidler prepared the PSR dated March 29, 2017. She also testified at the hearing. [ 47 ] Ms. Fidler personally interviewed five family members, one Kilburn staff member, three La Loche teachers, the La Loche school social worker, the La Loche community prevention officer and a representative from the village of La Loche. Ms. Fidler also reviewed the Prosecutor Information Sheet, the Kilburn Youth facility file and the Youth Justice File. She met with R.F. on November 28, 2017 for approximately two hours and March 6, 2017 for approximately one hour.

[ 48 ] To complete “Impact on the Victim and Community”, Ms. Fidler personally interviewed seven of the injured individuals and/or their families. Some interviewees, including Dayne and Drayden’s mother, harbour no ill feelings toward R.F. Others want him sentenced as an adult. Some desire a “sentence that fits and something that would deter this from happening again”. [ 49 ] Ms. Fidler, aware that Dene was R.F.’s first language, tried to get a Dene interpreter but was unsuccessful in her efforts. [ 50 ] R.F. was generally responsive and attentive.

During the first interview R.F. provided the detailed account of the shootings. Ms. Fidler described him “... just very open about talking about it. It didn`t…he didn`t appear to be upset about talking about pieces of it. He was able to explain in great detail”. [2] [ 51 ] Ms. Fidler administered the Level of Service Inventory-SK Youth Edition (LSI-SK) to assess his level of risk and his likelihood to re-offend. The LSI-SK examines eight risk/need factors. Risk is measured on a scale of one to five, with level one being the lowest likelihood to re-offend and level five the highest. [ 52 ] Ms.

Fidler testified that the LSI-SK assessment does not speak to future risk of violent re- offending or sexual offending. It is a tool for general recidivism as opposed to violent recidivism. Ms. Fidler’s findings were reported as follows: “Overall Risk to Re-Offend: R.F.’s overall score on the LSI-SK was determined to be within the Level 3 risk category. The research referenced in the above Methodology

Section indicates youth who scored within this level re-offended at 36% within the time frames of the study. Services targeted to address the major risk factors can over time decrease the assessed level and corresponding likelihood to re-offend. As a result, identifying the major risk factors of an individual is important and requires further attention. The major risk concerns for R.F. were identified as follows: Leisure/Recreation; Pro-Criminal Attitude/Orientation and antisocial Pattern.

The strength areas identified are Criminal History; Education/Employment; Family Circumstances and Parenting; Companion and Substance Use/Abuse. On cross-examination, Ms. Fidler confirmed that the risk assessment was based on what a youth had done while in the community and not on his behavior and/or performance while in an institution. [ 53 ] Ms. Fidler did not have the results of Dr. Harker’s risk assessment. [ 54 ] Ms. Fidler identified three areas of risk concerns and four strength areas. She reported: Risk areas: i.

Leisure/Recreation R.F. has not been involved in any organized recreational activity although up to about 2012 he would go to the skate park and ride his BMX with his friends. His main leisure activity appears to be playing video games, watching You Tube and Net Flix. He has done some snowmobiling, biking, quadding and skate boarding. He also enjoys driving but has only a learner’s licence.

ii. Pro-Criminal Attitude/Orientation R.F. stated that “nothing good comes from doing crime”. Upon further questioning Ms. Fidler discovered that he has, in her opinion, a tolerance for antisocial values ex: “smoking weed is not such a bad crime because you are not hurting someone else”, he likes talking to people who have committed crimes and listening to what they’ve done. R.F. is willing to overlook rules if no one gets hurt, such as driving with only a learner’s and breaking into cars checking for change.

The ease with which he discussed the shootings and his planning of such, combined with his interest in watching videos of school shootings, caused her concern. She was provided with reports from Kilburn Youth Facility indicating incidents where he was glorifying violence. R.F. felt remorse for the deaths of Dayne and Drayden because “it made his family sad”. However, he had no insight into why he committed the offences or their impact. Ms.

Fidler opined that R.F. had a pro-criminal attitude and tolerance of antisocial values and a willingness to excuse, overlook or justify delinquent, antisocial or criminal behaviour. iii. Antisocial Pattern Ms. Fidler relied on assessments provided by Drs. Mela and Nelson (dated September 13 and August 17, 2016). She did not have access to Dr. Harker’s psychological assessment. Her own observations were that R.F. had committed very serious violent offences, that he exhibited a criminal attitude towards crime, toward prosocial convention and a poor attitude towards the offences. Ms.

Fidler ended her findings stating, “R.F. does not show a pattern of generalized trouble across the various risk areas. He has always been enrolled and connected to school. He has not been suspended while attended La Loche Community School and he has never been identified as having an alcohol problem”. [3] Strength areas: i. Criminal History R.F. does not have a criminal record and had never been held in custody before. He was adjusting adequately to the Kilburn facility. He was receiving programming with other youth. Some of Ms.

Fidler’s comments regarding his history and behaviour at Kilburn came from his caseworker and from facility reports. ii. Education/Employment R.F. was not doing well academically in Gr. 10 but was attending school on a full time basis. Attendance records showed “good” attendance (over 50%) even though he was often either late or missed classes once he got there. He had never been expelled or suspended. Although he attended school, R.F. did not like going to school. However, he had friends at school and enjoyed being with them. Teachers observed him joking around and interacting with friends.

He found his schoolwork confusing. Lara was not aware of any school concerns and “wasn’t sure what he did there”. The Vice Principal reported that R.F. struggled with abstract thinking and put in ”bare minimum effort” into school work with about a 10% completion rate. At the time of Ms. Fidler’s report he was doing some schooling at Kilburn but again was described as not putting forth much effort. It was noted that he was a “voracious reader” with English being his strongest class. iii. Family circumstances & Parenting Ms. Fidler provided a detailed family history and background.

I will not review all of that history. He considers Lara as his mother. They have had arguments over minor matters but he described their relationship as “pretty good”. He was given chores to do around the house. He did not have any complaints about his upbringing and stated that he was provided with everything he needed. This comment was confirmed by his grandparents and his aunt Alicia. Both grandparents reported that they seldom said “no” to R.F. and were always willing to give him money or let him use the vehicle when he needed it. Alicia also gave him her truck whenever he wanted it.

R.F. felt closest to his grandfather. He described going to his grandparents house every day and having supper together. He had gone hunting and camping with his grandfather and talked about being given the truck when he wanted to drive. He has a good relationship with his biological mother Gail and reported seeing her on a regular basis. He has not had much contact with his father, Roger. R.F’s family remain supportive and phone and visit him on a regular basis at Kilburn. iv. Companions/Substance Abuse An interview with a La Loche teacher revealed that his school attendance allowed for prosocial contacts.

This teacher had seen him interact with other students. His best friend was not involved in any type of criminal activity. R.F. did acknowledge that he hung out with friends who had criminal records and that they would check out cars for money (but were never caught). Ms.

Fidler described R.F.’s regular marijuana use, of which there is ample evidence, as follows: “There is no evidence that R.F.’s use of substances specifically marijuana has contributed to problems with school and he has never been asked to leave school because of drug use.....R.F.’s substance use has not contributed to any physical complaints or medical concerns. It appears that R.F. has not used substances to unconsciousness (alcohol), had no difficulty reducing intake and has no financial difficulties.

R.F. has never seen a counsellor or attended any treatment facilities for alcohol or drug use.” [4] [ 55 ] That his marijuana use is listed as a strength area is puzzling. There was no examination in-chief on this point. However, on cross-examination, Ms. Fidler agreed that if she was supervising him and he advised her that he was using twice a day, she would get an assessment done to see if there was a problem. [ 56 ] Ms. Fidler made no recommendations in the PSR or in her testimony concerning an appropriate sentence. [ 57 ] Ms. Fidler concurred with Dr.

Harker’s recommendations for risk management and reduction, being forensic treatment, cognitive restructuring, participation with facility staff’s program of cognitive work, participation in more recreational activities in the facility, rehabilitation efforts that focus on his antisocial personality, monitoring for depression and PTSD, contact with professionals with an expertise in intellectual disabilities, and access to cultural activities in the facility.

[ 58 ] Crown counsel questioned the validity of the level three risk score because the LSI-SK did not account for some of the specific facts relating to R.F., his crimes or the community in which R.F. lived. B. DR. DECLAN QUINN [ 59 ] Dr. Quinn conducted a court-ordered psychiatric assessment and provided viva voce evidence. [ 60 ] By consent, Dr. Quinn was qualified as an expert in the areas of psychiatry and in particular, child and youth psychiatry. [ 61 ] Dr. Quinn interviewed R.F. five times at Kilburn: December 20 and 21, 2016 and January 5, 10 and 16, 2017.

Each session lasted between 1 hour and 1 hour and 15 minutes. Dr. Quinn spoke with R.F.’s mother, two Kilburn psychiatric nurses who had dealt with R.F. and he reviewed Dr. Nelson’s report. [ 62 ] Dr. Quinn described R.F. as being alert, aware of his surroundings, polite and co- operative “for the most part”. He was able to follow the conversation and usually, answered questions openly about himself. [ 63 ] Dr. Quinn’s written report stated “his cognitive skills (intellectual skills) appear to be in the normal range.

There is no evidence of him being developmentally delayed in terms of his intellectual functioning. He seemed to understand questions and respond appropriately. [5] Dr. Quinn testified that his opinion was based upon his observations and interactions with R.F. during the interviews. R.F. did not present as developmentally delayed or slow in the interview settings. He further testified that R.F. was able to “…describe his feelings and emotions and follow the conversation”. [6] [ 64 ] Dr.

Quinn, aware, that Dene was R.F.’s first language, took this into consideration when administering the assessment tools: Q Is that something that was factored in on your

part in any of the assessment tools or in your - - in your own person subjective assessment of him? A It was, because after he had answered the questionnaires that I have him and I swore them, I then went back over some of the questions that he answered to get examples of what he meant. And to explain some of his answers better to me. Q Does - - A To make sure that he understood them. [7] [ 65 ] Dr. Quinn testified that he screened for the five common psychiatric disorders seen in children and adolescents. These are depression, anxiety, ADHD, oppositional defiant disorder and substance abuse.

He also investigated as to whether or not there was any evidence of thought disorders such as psychosis, schizophrenia or any other problem that might be classed as unusual or rare. Dr. Quinn’s findings were as follows: In the interview setting there is no evidence of any psychosis. There were no hallucinations. There was no thought disorder. There is no evidence of any schizophrenia. He denied any suicidal ideation. There was no evidence of any clinical depression. He does not seem to suffer from an anxiety disorder. There is no obsessive-compulsive disorder present.

Currently there are no substance abuse problems. He does admit however to using marijuana in the past as well as alcohol and smoking cigarettes. It does not appear to have been a

significant substance misuse problem. There is no evidence of any Asperger-autism disorder.” [8] [ 66 ] Dr. Quinn administered the following self-reporting scales. Results are listed at page two of his report: 1. The PHQ-9, a measure of depression. 2. The SCARED, a measure of anxiety. 3. The Barkley Adult ADHD rating scale to screen for ADHD symptoms. 4. A self-report of personality- the Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC). 5. The Child Behavior Checklist (CBC) to screen for other psychiatric disorders and mental health. On the first three questionnaires R.F. scored in the normal range.

However, on the last two questionnaires, Dr. Quinn identified features of anxiety and depression. He also identified features of conduct disorder. Dr. Quinn also had R.F. complete a computer-based test to check concentration (Conner`s Continuous Performance Test) as well as a similar test on an iPad (the auditory concentration test (TACT)). Dr. Quinn testified that they were demanding tests. R.F. was frustrated with these tests and gave up. The tests were therefore unreliable and invalid. [ 67 ] Dr. Quinn elaborated on the above findings in his testimony.

Using the PHQ-9 measure of depression, a score over 12-13 indicates possible depression needing treatment. It does not give a percentile rank but “…it`s a very good way of eliciting signs and symptoms of depression.” [9] [ 68 ] R.F.’s score was 8, which placed him in the normal range; however, Dr. Quinn was aware that R.F. had been on an antidepressant while in Kilburn so it was difficult for him to “make sense” of the score. [ 69 ] The SCARED test results for anxiety were within the normal range.

His score was 13, which was “way below the cut off recommended to suggest some he’s got an anxiety disorder.” [10] Notwithstanding the above, on the Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC) test and the Child Behavior Checklist (CBC), a screen for other psychiatric disorders, Dr. Quinn testified as follows: And when R.F. completed the Behaviour Assessment Scale, he identified himself as being depressed and he identified himself as having very poor self-esteem and feeling very inadequate. And that his ability for independent sort of lifestyle was very poor. And this was a concern.

He also expressed a terrible attitude towards school that put him in the top two percent. And he did not like school. I went over this with him and he liked the school in Kilburn because he felt that that teacher was very supportive and concerned about him. [11] When explaining the CBC self-reporting, Dr. Quinn testified that: …he puts himself as being in a very anxious area, in the top two percent, that he’s feeling quite depressed. That he identifies himself surprisingly to me on having features of an attentional problem, paying attention to - - to tasks, failing to finish things, trouble concentrating.

And this was at odds with the other rating scale, the Barkley Self-Report Rating Scale. [12] [ 70 ] On the tests for the Barkley Adult ADHD rating scale, R.F. scored within the normal range. Dr. Quinn testified that R.F. identified with one of the symptoms and the rest was scored in the normal range. These conclusions were based on clinical conclusions as opposed to research conclusions. Dr. Quinn was clearly driven by the CBC and BASC as to how R.F. was feeling about himself.

R.F. described himself “as a very sad, unhappy young man who had features of attentional problems and that these may have been present from before”.(emphasis mine) [ 71 ] As for the events surrounding January 22, 2016, Dr. Quinn reported the following:

He periodically did speak about the shootings that took place. He gave me very little information of the events that took place that day. It does appear that he’d been thinking about this for many weeks. He had done a lot of reading on the Columbine shooting, the Virginia Tech shooting and the Sandy Hook shooting. He stated he watched videos on YouTube on the Columbine shootings. He stated that the weapons he used had been in his grandfather’s house. He stated that his grandparents were away that day. He also stated that he had put on Facebook what he had been doing before going to the school.

I could find no evidence that he was psychotic on the day of the shootings. He seemed to be very much alert and oriented and knew what he was doing. There were no hallucinations. He did not have any auditory hallucinations commanding him to shoot people. [13] [ 72 ] Dr.

Quinn testified he was not able to ascertain how much the videos could have influenced or contributed to the shootings. “For R.F., I couldn’t get any indication about why he wanted to do it, what led to it happening, but he seemed to have got it planned as to how he was doing it and didn’t want to give me the details.” [14] [ 73 ] Although not at issue, Dr. Quinn found R.F. fit to plead. [ 74 ] Dr. Quinn recommended that R.F. receive ongoing follow up for his self-reported problems with self-esteem, anxiety and depression. On cross-examination, Dr.

Quinn agreed that this should include a combination of on-going counselling, strategies, developing an understanding, using medications and putting other supportive measures in place. [ 75 ] Dr. Quinn also recommended that R.F. complete his education and access on-going psychiatric services so as to gain insight in an attempt to explain the events leading up to the shooting. C. DR. KATELYN HARKER [ 76 ] Dr. Harker conducted the court-ordered psychological assessment. By consent, she was qualified as an expert in the area of psychology. [ 77 ] Dr.

Harker provided two reports dated January 25, 2017, and March 20, 2017. Since September 2016, she had worked in a supportive counselling role with R.F. to assist him to adjust to his circumstances and deal with negative emotions as they arise. Sessions with R.F. were bi-weekly and lasted anywhere from 15 minutes to 45 minutes. [ 78 ] For the purposes of the court-ordered reports, she met with R.F. December 20 and 21, 2016, January 5, 10 and 16, 2017. One session was for two hours. The remaining interviews were between 30 and 60 minutes. The following sources of collateral information were relied on by Dr.

Harker: • Clinical Interviews and administration of psychometric measures with R.F. • Review of the

Summary of Investigation • Review of Young Offender file • Review of Kilburn Hall Youth Centre (KHYC) file • Interview with Chris Hales, Youth Facility Worker (KHYC) • Interview with Kylene Fontaine, aunt • Review of information obtained from Lara Fontaine, adoptive mother (provided by McDougall Gauley LLP)

• Interview with Tanis Fidler, Probation Officer • Review of La Loche Community School records • Review of

Summary of witness statement of Dan McDonald, Teacher at La Loche Community School (provided by McDougall Gauley LLP) • Review of Psychological Report by Dr. Monty Nelson, dated August 17, 2016 [15] [ 79 ] She also reviewed Dr.Quinn’s and Dr. Mela’s psychiatric reports. [ 80 ] Dr. Harker found R.F. to be polite and cooperative, although he would not tolerate long assessment sessions. R.F. completed a measure of personality assessments, a substance use assessment, and a psychological inventory in an effort to provide her with information concerning his current mental health functioning. [ 81 ] Due to Dr.

Nelson’s concerns regarding R.F.’s reading abilities, Dr. Harker had planned on reading the questions to R.F. However, he was adamant that he could do them on his own. To ensure that he could, she had him read two items for each measure, which he did without difficulty. This was in contrast to Dr. Nelson’s concerns. [ 82 ] Dr. Harker provided very detailed background information including, but not limited to, his family circumstances, peers, education, substance abuse, leisure /interests, medical history, criminal history, and institutional behaviour.

I will be referring to some of these sections throughout this decision. [ 83 ] Dr. Harker performed psychological testing for emotional and mental health functioning, personality, and substance abuse screening: a. Adolescent Psychopathology Scale (APS-SF): Revealed R.F. was experiencing moderate problems with post-traumatic stress. Dr. Harker found this consistent with his disclosure and Kilburn staff reports of him experiencing nightmares and intrusive thoughts associated with his cousins (Dayne and Drayden). Dr.

Harker noted that R.F.s responses did not identify any other problems in the clinical or subclinical symptom range. b. Scores on the psychological scales indicated that he may have a negative self- concept, be sensitive to criticism, and have marked feelings of alienation. She further reported elevated scores on two scales which are the best measures of delinquency and propensity for adult criminality-- Conduct Disorder and Oppositional Defiant Disorder. R.F. acknowledged some issues with depression and anxiety but she felt those did not meet the criteria for a diagnosis. Dr.

Harker commented that he did not present as angry or aggressive. This was surprising to her given the “extreme violence” of his acts. c. Substance Abuse Screening: Testing indicated “... R.F. has a high probability of having a mild substance use disorder. His responses suggest his family and/or peer group likely hold attitudes supportive of substance use. However, he does not appear to see his use as normal and he acknowledged consequences of his use. ... The results of his measure are consistent with self and collateral reports of marijuana use.

The measure did not identify any issues with alcohol use.” [16] [ 84 ] R.F. confirmed with Dr. Harker that had he acted alone in the shootings. “…he was not encouraged or supported by his peers and he was very clear about that with me, that he acted alone.” [17] He denied that he had been bullied. She reported “There has been much speculation that R.F. was bullied but R.F. was adamant that those reports are incorrect.” [18]

He reported he had friends with whom he would hang out with, smoke marijuana and listen to music. He enjoyed biking and online games. When he started to smoke marijuana, he lost motivation in school and did not make an effort at school. He went to school every day but would skip classes. He mostly enjoyed walking the halls between classes; he did nothing in class and was mostly on his phone. He learned that the teachers would leave him alone if it looked like he was working. He got along well with his teachers. He started using marijuana in grade 9 and was smoking daily.

He had gone to school high but was never caught. He drank alcohol at 14 years old, got intoxicated at 16, had never been blacked out, and had only been drunk less than 10 times. Dr. Harker reports the following: He also reported he has a general interest in firearms. He was not sure, where this interest originated but noted he enjoys how he feels when he shoots a gun; he stated that shooting a gun puts him in a good mood and that he enjoys target practice. He did not think this was related to feeling powerful.

While there is nothing inherently wrong with firearms as an interest or target practice as a hobby, the connection in this case to his offence is relevant. His likes as listed in his portfolio that was seized by the police were reportedly weed, Xbox, family and friends. [19] [ 85 ] When he was 14 or 15 years old, he had fallen off his bike and hit his head. He said he had amnesia for the rest of the day. He did not go to the physician. Dr. Nelson, in his report, said that R.F. had acknowledged some concussions and Dr. Mela was aware of this as well. [ 86 ] Dr.

Harker’s report at page 17 revealed additional information surrounding R.F.s offending: R.F. denied being upset regarding the conversation with his teacher Mr. McDonald about his marks that occurred that morning before the offense. He reported that he shot indiscriminately. In that he did not specifically target students or teachers; however, he stated that he would not have shot a friend. In response to queries about his Facebook message stating, “I’m done with life”, he reported this message was “bullshit” and he was not thinking clearly when he wrote it.

R.F. categorically denied feeling angry, sad, hopeless, or burnt out prior to the offenses. He informed writer that he believed his life was going well. He could not explain why he posted about killing his cousins and his plan to shoot up the school but denied it was to warn people. He was not certain when he began to think about and plan the offense but he had previously informed writer he had thought about it for approximately six months prior to acting. He remembered telling his family he was hated at school but reported to writer that it was not true when he said it.

He denied he was bullied at all, noting that writer should not believe all that is written in the media. In regard to the internet searches, he noted he was researching bigger magazines to have more shots when he attacked the school. He stated he initially wanted a more powerful gun that is typically used for moose hunting and that if he had used this gun, “no one would have survived”. He admitted that at the time of the offense, he did not want anyone to survive although now he is glad they did not die. Mr.

Hales stated that R.F. told him that he (R.F.) had planned to shoot people in groups to maximize the damage of the buckshot. R.F. denied searching or reading about killing a family member, familicide, or fratricide; however, he also denied that anyone else had access to his electronics. He admitted to searching the Columbine shooters but denied any connection to his offense (which seems highly unlikely to writer); he indicated he has a general interest in such events and searches them regularly for his own interest. Mr.

Hales verified that R.F. reported watching videos of mass shootings for several months prior to the offense. He denied any incident or event occurring at his grandparents’ house prior to shooting Dayne. He stated he did not know what happened when he retrieved the weapons or why he attacked his cousins. [20] [ 87 ] Dr. Harker’s risk assessment is dated March 28, 2017.

Additional sources of information for this report are as follows: • Review of report with R.F. • Document of defense lawyer’s interactions with R.F. provided by McDougall Gauley LLP, dated February 8, 2017 • Interview with Lara Fontaine on March 20, 2017 • Consultation with Tanis Fidler on March 14, 2017 • Review of psychiatric reported completed by Dr. Mansfield Mela on September 17, 2016 • Consultation with Kevin Cameron, Executive Director, Canadian Centre for Threat Assessment and Trauma response, February 21, 2017

[ 88 ] In assessing risk, Dr. Harker both in her report and in her testimony described certain caveats. In R.F.’s case “…risk is dynamic and fluid; thus the results of this analysis are intended to describe R.F.’s current risk.” “It is recommended that an appropriate reassessment be done before any major decisions regarding security level or release to the community are made.” [21] [ 89 ] Secondly, Dr.

Harker stated that the nature of the violence in this case coupled with the fact that he had no history of violence or pattern of aggression, pointed to different risk factors for violence than those generally associated to violent individuals. [ 90 ] She testified the main value in a risk assessment was to identify treatment targets in the hope of reducing risk. In R.F.’s case further difficulties arose because there was no good tool for accessing future risk for rampage school shootings (the term used in the literature for R.F.s offence).

It was rare that rampage shooters were released back into the community due to the reality that most rampage school shooters either killed themselves or were killed by authorities. As a result there were no samples upon which to base an assessment. She stated, “There are currently no instruments validated for use in this population.” [22] [ 91 ] The final caveat discussed by Dr. Harker was the quality of the information informing the assessment. In her opinion, the school and police reports were objective sources of information.

A majority of the information received from R.F. and his family members was problematic for Dr. Harker. She testified that some information was contradictory as between family members and R.F., and in some areas she found outright disagreement. [ 92 ] As a result, Dr. Harker stated “This contradictory information, paired with the lack of validation for instruments with rampage school shooters, leads writer to have LOW CONFIDENCE in the accuracy of the results as pertaining to future risk of violence. Thus it is recommended the assessment be used strictly to inform risk reduction strategies”. [23] [ 93 ] Dr.

Harker employed the Violence Risk Scale (VRS). This was not a self-report tool; his score was based on her review of all sources of data and her face-to-face interviews with R.F. These findings represented his pre- treatment risk, “thus this initial assessment is intended to identify relevant treatment targets and to stand as a measure for progress (i.e. reduction in risk) following intervention”. [24] [ 94 ] After considering the dynamic factors that both increased and mitigated his risk for violence, his score fell in the medium risk range for violent re-offence. Again, Dr.

Harker had additional caveats regarding the score: Using the VRS, R.F’s score fell in the medium risk range for violent re-offense. However, as previously noted, writer does not believe this accurately captures his risk of future violence due to idiosyncratic risk factors in rampage school shooters and our lack of knowledge regarding subsequent violence in this population. It is writer’s supposition that given the extreme nature of the violence in his offense paired with previous and subsequent reports of aggressive behavior, he would be at high risk to reoffend violently in the community.

This is not to imply he would be likely to commit another act of such violence; this cannot be known. Rather, writer finds it unlikely that he would not be violent at all in the community without intervention to address his treatment needs. However, this is speculation given the lack of available knowledge regarding the population. [25] [ 95 ] Dr. Harker recommended that R.F.’s risk could be reduced if he accessed forensic treatment to address:

a) a pattern of interpersonal aggressiveness and violent fantasies,

b) emotional control, learning and improved coping strategies,

c) preoccupation/fascination with weapons and attitudes supportive of weapons use,

d) assistance for R.F. to understanding why he offended,

e) his impaired remorse and empathy regarding his harm of others, assistance to develop a better understanding of his emotions,

f) attitudes that are supportive of crime and violence and,

g) planning to determine what R.F.’s vocational/academic skills are and how he can reach those. [ 96 ] Dr. Harker said these recommendations should be combined with her general recommendations that he receive forensic treatment, general mental health treatment with reference to his cognitive testing results, access to appropriate cultural activities, and finally, that reports be shared in order to allow for and assist case planning and management. [ 97 ] Dr. Harker testified that she envisioned R.F.’s rehabilitation as being a very long process. She could not estimate the length of his rehabilitation.

In order for R.F. to show a substantial period of actual behavioural change she testified that it would depend on such factors as his motivation and engagement, the available treatment and how often his “treatment team” could meet with him. D. CHRISTOPHER HALES [ 98 ] Mr. Hales has been a Youth Worker on East Unit, Kilburn Youth Facility since 1999. East Unit houses youth with serious charges and/or with behavioral issues. R.F. was admitted to this unit on February 1, 2016, after a transfer from the Prince Albert Youth Facility. Mr.

Hales has been R.F.’s primary case worker since admission. [ 99 ] The role of a primary case worker is to advocate for the youth, help with any problems or issues they might have, case manage, administer the Courage to Change and Helping Children Thrive program, set up phone and visiting lists, and ”helping them get through the days”. The primary case worker is also informed of any reports involving the young person, including educational activities, behavioural issues, etc. [ 100 ] For the first eight months on East Unit, R.F. attended programming by himself.

He was assigned his own personal teacher immediately upon admission. In his experience Mr. Hales had not encountered that before with any other youth. The majority of R.F.’s time was spent playing cards or staying in his room. He testified that R.F. would take

part in school “barely at all”. The facility had contracted a Dene Elder to work specifically with R.F. He did beading, cultural crafts and had someone with whom he could speak Dene with. After six months R.F. did not want to have any more contact with the Elder because it was “boring”. [ 101 ] The daily routine for R.F. is three school classes of 50 minutes each between 9:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. Evenings are spent playing cards, sports, board games, and watching T.V. and videos. Any required chores or Unit cleaning are also done at that time. R.F. has worked himself up to be the laundry person for the Unit.

He also sees a psychiatrist every month and a psychologist every two weeks. [ 102 ] R.F. was transitioned to classes with three or four other youths on September 7, 2016. He has been performing considerably better in his educational pursuits. His reading went from a Grade 4 level to a Grade 9 level, although he still struggles with mathematics. Mr. Hales testified that R.F. was talking and socializing more with the staff. He had not noticed any change in R.F.’s comprehension. [ 103 ] Mr. Hales described R.F. as not tolerating other youth but getting frustrated with them.

R.F. preferred to interact with staff as opposed to the other youth. When dealing with staff, R.F. doesn’t like to be told “no”. He will get argumentative over scheduling if he doesn’t get his own way, or if he thinks he deserves something. R.F. also gets into power struggles with staff over the rules. If there are new staff, or staff he is not familiar with, he tries to manipulate them. He “staff shops”. [ 104 ] Mr. Hales has never seen R.F. being approached for gang involvement. R.F. doesn’t appear interested in gangs or any type of association with them. [ 105 ] R.F. has progressed through the “level system”.

There is no level assignment for the first eight months after admission so he was not placed on the Level system until October 1, 2016. He attained his Level 2 (the highest level on East Unit) on October 14, 2016. [ 106 ] To maintain level status youth are marked daily on their behaviours. This system is used to illustrate behaviours that require improving and/or correcting. More serious behaviour infractions will result in an incident report. One such incident was when R.F. asked if Mr. Hales was going to give him a gift on the first anniversary of the shootings. Mr.

Hales testified that there were other incidents that, in his opinion, should have been written up as a formal incident report but were not. He provided examples: requesting newspaper articles about the shootings, smuggling a key chain to family members, punching walls, and swearing at staff members. [ 107 ] Mr. Hales testified that overall, R.F. had done well at the facility, with just minor rule infractions. R.F. had not been involved in any fights and/or physical altercations, “just youth defiance”, and that going up and down levels was normal, and also R.F. has held his higher level longer than most youth.

He further testified that R.F. got upset and emotional around his cousins’ deaths and would sometimes talk of self-harm, and express feelings of helplessness and hopelessness. [ 108 ] Mr. Hales was aware of approximately five or six Intensive Rehabilitative Custody and Supervision [IRCS] sentences having been served at Kilburn. He confirmed when youth leave Kilburn there is no further involvement with the facility or the case workers. He had read the PSR but could not recall if he had read the recommendations. He had not read Dr.

Harker’s report so was not able to comment or give an opinion as to whether or not the types of programs being suggested in the reports would either be available or could be accommodated at Kilburn. [ 109 ] Kilburn staff do not discuss a youth’s charges while they are on remanded status. However, after R.F. entered his guilty pleas he started to discuss the shootings with Mr. Hales. Mr. Hales contacted defence counsel to inform them of the latter. Mr. Hales was not sure if their discussions or the notes he kept should go on the facility file so his notes were kept separate and locked in his locker.

He shared the discussions with Dr. Harker. [ 110 ] Mr. Hales’ notes were entered as an exhibit. An entry dated November 21, 2016 reveals that R.F. was “eager” to discuss the shootings at the school; his cousins were not part of the plan; he would not talk about them; the school shooting was planned but R.F. had no particular targets in mind; he knew that a 12-gauge shotgun sprayed when fired hitting large groups if possible. According to Mr. Hales, R.F. was able to give full details shooting the victims, where he aimed etc. and he disclosed having a gun on an Elder but not shooting her. [ 111 ] Mr.

Hales noted that R.F. showed no emotion “when reliving the event”. He described R.F. as being calm, relaxed and gauging his (Mr. Hales’) reaction. Mr. Hales noted that R.F. had no insight as to how either the victims or families would feel. When questioned in examination- in-chief, Mr. Hales testified that although he was not 100% certain, he believed that R.F. did not shoot the Elder because he liked her. [ 112 ] The next discussion between Mr. Hales and R.F. occurred on November 29, 2016. R.F. said he had been watching videos of the Columbine school shootings and other videos months before. According to Mr.

Hales, R.F. had “shot up the school because he wanted to see what it would be like”. In his notes, Mr. Hales wrote “anger/worried/sad after shooting

cousins” [26] No further evidence was led on that point. [ 113 ] Mr. Hales brought up the shootings during programming with R.F on January 16, 2017. He asked R.F. “why did you do this?” R.F. responded “everyone wants to know why, everyone’s constantly asking me why, why, why I did this”. [27] As they continued their discussions R.F. volunteered that after pulling the trigger at the school, it was an “extreme scary rush”. [ 114 ] The following day, January 17, 2017, Mr. Hales was again doing programming.

During a general discussion, R.F. used the term “obsessed” and “messed up” from watching shooting videos online. Mr. Hales testified that he did not ask R.F. to elaborate on what he meant by that. R.F. again mentioned the rush he felt when shooting people at the school. As the anniversary date of the shootings was approaching, staff were concerned as to how R.F. may react, as at times he would become upset thinking about the deaths of Dayne and Drayden. Mr. Hales planned on discussing coping techniques. Instead, R.F. asked “you buying me a gift for the anniversary”. Not sure he had heard correctly, Mr.

Hales asked him to repeat what was just said. The response was the same. When asked why he would make such a comment R.F. replied, with a “smirk kind of smile,” that it was a joke. [ 115 ] Mr. Hales observed that R.F. glorified violence on television/ movies and that if he saw items on TV regarding police shootings he would find them funny. R.F. had a distrust and lack of respect towards police. Mr. Hales had to correct R.F.’s attitude regarding comments he would make with a smile while in the presence of youth or staff about mass shootings, or ISIS bombings. E. JENNIFER PETERSON [ 116 ] Ms.

Peterson is the coordinator for the IRCS Program for the Province of Saskatchewan. An IRCS sentence is available pursuant to section 42(7) of the YCJA and can only be imposed where (

i) the young person has been found guilty of a serious violent offence; (ii) the young person is suffering from a mental illness or disorder, a psychological disorder or an emotional disturbance; (iii) a plan of treatment and intensive supervision has been devised for the youth; and (iv) the provincial director has approved an IRCS plan. [ 117 ] There is a partnership with the Federal Government to provide enhanced funding for intensive rehabilitative services for youth who commit serious violent offences. This is funding that might not be available for regular youth sentences.

Generally, prior to an IRCS sentence being granted, a treatment plan is created and considered utilizing information gleaned from psychological and psychiatric assessments, the pre-sentence report, and other appropriate reports. Once approved by the Provincial Director, an IRCS sentence is imposed. The treatment plan is then further developed to ensure proper treatment services geared toward a rehabilitation plan. It is administered with the enhanced funding which is provided. Ms.

Peterson described IRCS as a “resource intensive” sentence. [ 118 ] The Provincial Director convened a meeting with participants from the Ministries of Justice and Health to consider the appropriateness and availability of an IRCS sentence for R.F. Ms. Peterson was part of this group. An initial meeting was held in January, 2017. Attendees included the PSR author, her Supervisor and Director, Mr. Hales and Kilburn’s Deputy Director, Dr. Harker, two representatives from the Ministry of Justice and Ms. Peterson. Due to the various assessments not being completed, the meeting was adjourned to March 4, 2017. Ms.

Fidler’s supervisor and Mr. Hales from Kilburn were not present at this meeting. Gina Rayburn, a Kilburn Director was an addition for this meeting. Consideration was given to whether an IRCS was available or appropriate. His age, the duration of time he would spend in a young offender facility and the treatment focus were discussed. [ 119 ] One of the difficulties the working group encountered was determining the availability of programming because “…the assessment didn’t have significant findings of what was…what we would or what we could or what we should do for R.F. for treatment specific to violence.” [28]

[ 120 ] Ms. Peterson testified because R.F. was 19 years of age the working group considered how long he would likely be able to remain in a youth facility and also the possibility of his transfer to an adult institution. She explained youth are transferred to an adult facility at age 20 unless granted permission by the Provincial Director to remain at the youth facility. She testified there have been IRCS sentences for offenders serving in provincial adult facilities.

That situation was not ideal because young offender facility programming was more therapeutic as compared to programming in adult provincial correctional facilities. On cross-examination, when asked if any provincial correctional centres in Saskatchewan were set up to deal with an IRCS sentence, her response was that they were not. She further testified that if R.F. were to receive a sentence of two years or more, he would go to a Federal penitentiary. She confirmed that once a youth left the provincial system, IRCS would have no role.

He would be on parole under the auspices of the Correctional Service of Canada. [ 121 ] On cross-examination, Ms. Peterson agreed, because R.F. was turning 20 in February 2018, there would not be enough time to do sufficient programming for him before being transferred from Kilburn. When questioned about the process that had led to the Associate Deputy Minister of Justice’s, recommendations, Ms.

Peterson testified the working group discussed the length of time available to work with R.F., and the ability to put together a treatment plan that “…would last a significant amount of time to actually have an impact”. [29] The PSR and psychological report were reviewed. Feedback was received from Kilburn staff explaining R.F.’s interactions with other young persons. These considerations were at the center of both group meetings as well as the telephone and email discussions. Ms.

Peterson agreed with the defence suggestion that R.F. fell within the pre-requisite of section 42(7) (b) (mental illness or disorder, a psychological disorder or an emotional disturbance); however, she added that “although Dr. Harker’s findings didn’t necessarily find - - or lay out a mental illness we – the previous assessments by Dr. Mela identified that there – there were disturbances at – at minimum”. [30] In considering possible treatment plans she confirmed that the group did not consult a psychiatrist, either Dr. Quinn or Dr. Mela. The group did not have or review Dr. Quinn’s court-ordered report.

The working group reviewed Dr. Mela’s report but not his recommendations. [ 122 ] Further on this point, Ms. Peterson testified that typically a working group relied on the psychologist to gather all pertinent information, which would include the findings of the psychiatrist. Their recommendations would then be presented to the group. In this case Dr. Harker had the psychiatric reports. She presented her findings and recommendations verbally to the working group. The working group did not have either of Dr. Harker’s written reports.

The working group did not review her recommendations one by one but instead discussed them in a general fashion. She testified the working group spent considerable time reviewing matters and “…the general consensus was we didn’t think that as a province we were prepared to offer an adequate program”. [31] [ 123 ] Following the consultations and meetings, Ms. Peterson drafted a letter with the recommendations of the working group to the Deputy Minister. The two central office representatives who were part of the working group delivered her letter to the Deputy Minister.

She was not privy to conversations that took place once the letter was delivered. She did not receive any further questions from the two representatives who had met with the Deputy, but “there was lots of communication prior to the central office people meeting with Mr. Coullee (sic), just to review more of the information so that they were better prepared to brief him”. [32] [ 124 ] A letter from the Associate Deputy Minister dated March 20, 2017 was sent to the Court. It states an IRCS program is not available or appropriate for R.F.

Factors considered were: “…treatment needs, his age, the anticipated length of sentence and programming available within the provincial system” “R.F.’s situation was reviewed fully. There is not a clear treatment plan to reduce his risk to reoffend. There is likelihood of placement in a provincial adult facility where treatment options are less available than a youth a facility. The resulting determination is that an IRCS sentence is not appropriate for R.F.” [33] F. DR. MANSFIELD MELA [ 125 ] Dr. Mela was retained by defence to perform a psychiatric assessment of R.F.

He provided a written report dated September 17, 2016 and viva voce evidence. By consent Dr. Mela was qualified as an expert in forensic psychiatry. [ 126 ] Dr. Mela reviewed the school shooting video, police occurrence reports, police interviews with community and family members, as well as interviews with the biological and adoptive mothers. Personal interviews with R.F.

were conducted on April 1, 2, 4, 22 23, May 28, 2016 and August 10, 13, 27, 2016. [ 127 ] Dr. Mela requested Dr. Monty Nelson, a neuropsychologist, administer further tests on R.F. Dr. Nelson’s findings were incorporated into his final report. Dr. Nelson’s written report was filed by consent. [ 128 ] Dr. Mela ordered genetic testing for Fragile X syndrome, which is known to cause a range of learning disabilities and cognitive impairment. The analysis was normal. [ 129 ] Dr. Mela obtained the following information from R.F.

R.F.’s family history revealed, with the exception of Lara’s boyfriend, his relationship with family members was “cordial and good”. He enjoyed living with Lara. He was not able to point out any source of dissatisfaction or distress with his the home environment. [ 130 ] R.F. confirmed he was not doing well in Grade ten and he was not doing the work required. He confirmed reports that he had started smoking marijuana in Grade 9 but denied that that was the cause of his lack of success in school. Consistent with what he told Dr. Harker, he went to school mainly to hang out with his friends.

He again denied being bullied and stated he was not teased about, nor affected by, his nickname of “Ears”. [ 131 ] Dr. Mela’s report stated, “In spite of truancy, being suspended thrice and having difficulties with certain subjects, R.F. did not characterize his school experience as negative, isolating or demeaning. He was not able to point to a factor in school that he would be angry at the school, the teachers or students for”. [34] [ 132 ] Dr. Mela reported that R.F. said that teachers treated him well and that students were nice to him. Specifically he did not identify any students in a negative manner.

He liked hanging out with his friends who were in the same grade with him. On the impact of repeating his grade ten, he specifically said he “didn’t care and it didn’t bother me”. He said nobody made fun of him or called him names because there were a lot of his friends and students that also repeated. The fact that he repeated a class three times did not make him feel bad and he said he did not feel singled out or demeaned by others. [35] [ 133 ] R.F. was smoking marijuana sometimes 2-3 times daily. On occasion his brother (not named) would pay him in marijuana instead of cash for work he performed.

He confirmed reports of smoking marijuana with his biological father. Sometimes when smoking he thought others were looking at and talking about him. These instances were rare. Dr. Mela reported the effect of R.F.’s sensing others were talking about him was not held in a strong conviction. R.F. had never confronted the persons to inquire if they talked about him or not. Dr. Mela testified that R.F. was not delusional and R.F. denied hearing things when he smoked. R.F. reported that he smoked because it calmed him down, improved his appetite and helped him sleep. [ 134 ] Dr.

Mela reported that R.F. felt “…he was normal and unaffected by the difficulties he experienced academically, from repeated use of marijuana and the life experiences before and after the offence. He said that he did not feel psychologically abnormal. What he really enjoyed in the past was hanging out with his friends, playing video games and smoking marijuana”. [36] Dr. Mela’s opinion was that R.F. was minimizing his psychological difficulties regularly during the interviews. [ 135 ] R.F. advised Dr. Mela that he was angry at being in jail instead of being with his family; he was bored, and was lonely.

Thinking of his offence, especially regarding his cousins, made his anger worse so he was punching walls, etc. at Kilburn. Prior to being in Kilburn he used marijuana to manage his anger. He said that he used to like going to town and spending time with his friends but that since 2013 it was not as interesting as it used to be; he was biking less and “he didn’t want to do

that anymore”. Dr. Mela testified that this information was useful to support a diagnosis of a “major depressive disorder” beginning in 2012. [ 136 ] As a result of his interviews with R.F., review of collateral material and results of Dr. Nelson’s testing, Dr. Mela diagnosed R.F. as having the following disorders according to the DSM-5: • Intellectual Developmental Disorder • Conduct Disorder • Major Depressive Disorder • Cannabis Use Disorder • Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder • Parent-child Relational problems Dr.

Mela testified that with the exception of the PTSD, the above disorders would have been in place at or around the time of the offence. G. DR. MONTY NELSON [ 137 ] By consent, Dr. Nelson was qualified as an expert in neuropsychology. [ 138 ] Dr. Mela requested Dr. Nelson’s assistance to clarify R.F.’s cognitive skills and abilities and assist in understanding the nature of his actions earlier this year. [ 139 ] Dr. Nelson considered Dr. Mela’s comments regarding the offence, and R.F.’s history of seizure difficulties when he was a child.

He interviewed Kilburn staff (Darwin Korycki), Kylene Fontaine (by phone on August 16, 2016) and R.F. over a period of two days. The evaluation consisted of tests in six areas: cognitive – intellectual, academic achievement, neuropsychological, language functioning, personality, and emotional functioning. Consistent with other assessors, R.F. presented as quiet, cautious, somewhat apprehensive and requiring breaks in the testing process. R.F. stated his first language was Dene. [ 140 ] Regarding thoughts on the shooting, R.F. described it to Dr.

Nelson as follows: R.F. notes that he often reflects about the day earlier this year that he took a gun from his grandmother’s home and used it to shoot two family members as well as other people at his school. He notes that he had initially taken two guns, but then as one was not working well, he took a shotgun. He notes that he did not initially want to kill his cousins (whom he calls “brothers”) but came home and did shoot them. After shooting his “brothers”, he went to the school.

He states that he was not angry at anyone in particular, but rather notes that he had just decided he was simply going to shoot whomever he saw. Even to this day, he notes that he is uncertain as to why he did this. He notes that he was not a victim of bullying by anyone, nor was he angry at anyone. He notes that he feel it is very unlikely that he would ever do a similar action again, and in fact he wishes he could turn back time and change what happened in his life. [37] [ 141 ] As with other assessors, some assessment instruments and test procedures were abbreviated to allow for breaks.

R.F. refused to complete some of the language related tasks but was agreeable to visual tasks as he did not have to speak as much. Dr. Nelson stated that caution was taken with R.F.’s self-reports as he was prone to minimize some of his stresses. As a result, Dr. Nelson felt that R.F. “…may be experiencing more stress and issues beneath the surface than he is able or willing to report”. [38]

[ 142 ] Testing confirmed the La Loche and Kilburn school reports that R.F. was a much stronger visual learner. Some visual reasoning skills were close to the average range. Problem solving and language skills were more difficult for him. Dr. Nelson determined an overall IQ sore of 68. In Dr. Nelson’s written report, this score was termed as “extremely low”. In viva voce evidence, he used the descriptive term “well below average”. Nonetheless, the score indicated that 2% of adults his age would score lower. Taking into consideration the four separate areas that make up an IQ score, Dr.

Nelson explained “The results were that although he does slightly better on visual tasks that are repetitive in nature, he thinks slowly, his language expression skills are weak and his concentration is poor”. [39] [ 143 ] To test for academic functioning, Dr. Nelson read the questionnaire to R.F. to be sure that R.F. understood. R.F.’s single word reading skills were at the 15 th percentile. Dr. Nelson determined this to be an area of relative strength as opposed to R.F.’s reading comprehension scores which were below the 1 st percentile, demonstrating weak reading skills.

This appeared to be in contrast to R.F.’s present reading skills as reported by Kilburn staff. (emphasis mine) [ 144 ] Dr. Nelson administered various tests to determine neuropsychological functioning. These types of tests are “sensitive to brain dysfunction”. His opinion was that R.F. “did all right” on his motor functioning and dexterity and that R.F.’s overall performance was generally reasonable. Dr. Nelson noticed some right handed weakness and slowness, which made him question whether there might be left hemisphere brain function deficits.

He advised a CT/MRI or an EEG would be of assistance to give a good general impression of the brain. Those diagnostic tests were not followed up. [ 145 ] Testing for decision making under pressure revealed that R.F. thinks slowly. He scored in the 21 st percentile for decision-making skills and trial and error learning. Dr.

Nelson described the result (low average) as meaning that R.F. “…is better able to make complex decisions with unlimited time, but under time pressure, his abilities to make good judgments begin to decrease significantly . [40] [ 146 ] R.F.’s visual attention and impulsiveness (Stroop test) performance was in the average range (26th percentile). There was no evidence led as to what this meant. His English language comprehension was weak. Dr.

Nelson opined that R.F.s abilities were similar to an approximate 12 year old. [ 147 ] R.F. has “reasonable visual memory skills” which placed him in the average range (34 th percentile). [ 148 ] Personality and Emotional functioning testing consisted of six tests and a clinical interview. One Kilburn staff member completed a questionnaire. This testing was to evaluate his level of effort, his personality and his emotional functioning. Dr. Nelson’s report revealed: Overall, his response patterns revealed no evidence of intentionally malingering or exaggerating his cognitive or emotional issues.

However, he did score high on measures of defensiveness, indicating a strong tendency to be quite guarded and to downplay having common issues that most others would readily agree to. As a result, he may be experiencing more stress than he is willing to or able to acknowledge. [41] [ 149 ] Based on additional information Dr. Nelson reported the following: R.F. was having flashbacks, anger and suicidal ideation. He was still having occasional violent thoughts and fantasies about hurting people.

He had regrets about shooting his “brothers” and felt badly about himself and was stressed about what he had done to them. R.F. was attached to his mother. He wanted to turn back time and take back what he had done. He worried about how much time he may receive. He was experiencing mild to moderate levels of depression and feeling hopeless and sad. He was restless, irritable, co

[…]